The results of the godly tomatoes method on kids

[FaithManor]

You know, one thing I was thinking about is the fact that the parent's perspective/interpretation of what kids are doing vs. What they should do has a tremendous influence on how they interact with their child. Here's a story:

 

When my second child was born, my mom stayed with me for about a week. I remember one day, I was nursing the baby and it was about time for DD, then 2.5, to take a nap. I must have mentioned this, and my mom responded like Militant Grammy. She snapped at DD someting like, "Time for a Nap!" And apparently meant for DD to leap to "obey" and trot off to bed. When this did not instantly happen, my mom plucked her off the floor and marched her up the stairs. dD, naturally, started to cry. (She was probably thinking, "why is Grammy acting so mean all the sudden? What did I do wrong?") I don't remember exactly how it went after that; i.e., I don't remember if DD did take a nap, but with crying or if I intervened; it was too long ago and I forget. I just remember my mom had this "make her obey" triumphant look on her face - the one I remember well from childhood - and I was thinking what was the purpose of all this unhappiness?

 

I never had any issue (by my perspective) putting DD down for a nap. But I also had a procedure that required some effort and lead-in. However, it never bothered me that I would need to invest some parenting time putting toddlers down for a nap. So, normally, I would first of all give notice that a nap is on the agenda coming soon. Then, we would go read a story and/or listen to some music or audiobooks. Then, DD would take a nap, initially listening to music. From my perspective, there was never any "battle" that had to be won. I didn't expect to order a toddler to go to bed and expect him or her to instantly march to the bedroom and go to sleep. But my mom probably thought she really ran a tight ship. *rolleyes*

I agree. I think that the punitive outlook derives from ridiculous expectations of children, and a lack of understanding of what is developmentally appropriate.

 

And interestingly enough, many adults listen to music to fall asleep, or read a while before turning out the lights, or drink warm milk, or some other routine in order to help their bodies make the transition so they can get some rest. Why on earth is there the assumption that no children anywhere need some assistance falling asleep?  I never understood that. Until the boys, who shared a room for most of their pre-school and elementary years, learned to fall asleep well together, he used to lay on the floor after reading them a story and sang softly to them. Sure it took up to 30 minutes. But he never resented it and just considered it part of parenting. Parenting being a rather time intensive thing. I feel like books like this seem to come from the premise that the minute they are out of infancy, children really shouldn't take much of your time or energy to raise, that somehow they will magically learn things despite adult inaction to help them.

 

For what it is worth, my middle boy who is a super active person by nature, not hyperactive but just simply has a lot of energy and enjoys being physically active, didn't do so well sitting at the table for any long length of time for school work. However, he did super well, very engaged and very focused, if I let him stand and if he wanted to, rock from foot to foot. He did a superb job all through his elementary years, eventually grew out of it, and despite being still a very, very active young adult, concentrates with the best of them on academic work. No yelling, no spanking, no forcing into the corner, no pleading, no angst, just parenting the kid in front of me not some wild expectation of perfection.

 

If I have advice for parents, it would "parent the kid you have, not your dream of what you wish he or she was".

[SparklyUnicorn]

You know, one thing I was thinking about is the fact that the parent's perspective/interpretation of what kids are doing vs. What they should do has a tremendous influence on how they interact with their child. Here's a story:

 

When my second child was born, my mom stayed with me for about a week. I remember one day, I was nursing the baby and it was about time for DD, then 2.5, to take a nap. I must have mentioned this, and my mom responded like Militant Grammy. She snapped at DD someting like, "Time for a Nap!" And apparently meant for DD to leap to "obey" and trot off to bed. When this did not instantly happen, my mom plucked her off the floor and marched her up the stairs. dD, naturally, started to cry. (She was probably thinking, "why is Grammy acting so mean all the sudden? What did I do wrong?") I don't remember exactly how it went after that; i.e., I don't remember if DD did take a nap, but with crying or if I intervened; it was too long ago and I forget. I just remember my mom had this "make her obey" triumphant look on her face - the one I remember well from childhood - and I was thinking what was the purpose of all this unhappiness?

 

I never had any issue (by my perspective) putting DD down for a nap. But I also had a procedure that required some effort and lead-in. However, it never bothered me that I would need to invest some parenting time putting toddlers down for a nap. So, normally, I would first of all give notice that a nap is on the agenda coming soon. Then, we would go read a story and/or listen to some music or audiobooks. Then, DD would take a nap, initially listening to music. From my perspective, there was never any "battle" that had to be won. I didn't expect to order a toddler to go to bed and expect him or her to instantly march to the bedroom and go to sleep. But my mom probably thought she really ran a tight ship. *rolleyes*

 

Plus nothing worse than having grandma turn into mean authoritative grandma.

 

ouch

 

 

 

[fairfarmhand]

So growing up in the "obey instantly even infants and toddlers" also led me to make huge mistakes with my own children.

 

(BTW, many of these things didn't happen in my home. My parents did love us and I think their fears for our spiritual state led them to believe that they needed to have their children behave a certain way or TERRIBLE THINGS WOULD HAPPEN. And I also think there is a huge ignorance of age appropriate behavior in this world of RGT style discipline.)

 

Anyway, I tried this stuff with my kids when I was a younger mom. In fact, I did things that really I am ashamed of all in the effort to try to get that instant obedience that was a marker of a good mommy. And you know how the people say, "Be consistent. That's the key. Your kids will stop this stuff if you are consistent." Apparently, they never met my oldest. Didn't matter how consistent I was with her. She is just a handful. She's impulsive and hard headed.

 

But you know, if I hadn't had such a challenging kid, I would still be enmeshed in this belief system that's focused more on outward behavior than inward attitudes. It wasn't until I learned to listen to my daughter and work with her to s.l.o.w.l.y. modify some really frustrating actions, words, and behaviors that I saw real lasting change in my kid. And it makes a huge difference when the child is onboard.

 

Thankfully, I learned a better way. I shudder to think where my dd and I would be if I hadn't

[MyLittleBears]

I need to stay away from this thread at this point. 

 

I just wanted to say one thing, even though I suppose I'm a sociopathic monster for finding anything redeeming in the RGT book according to the things people have said here. 

 

In terms of beating vs. spanking, personally I think that when we say a swat on the butt to get a child's attention is the same as a rage-filled adult hauling off and closed-fist beating a child is the same thing, then we end up making light of real abuse. But then again I see that people think light swats are abuse, or will 100% lead to viscous beating so I don't know what to say. I'm out of here. 

 

 

:grouphug:  No, I don't believe you are or even most people who use these methods are sociopathic monsters. I actually agree with you about a swat on the bottom. There is a difference. One of my ds was very impulsive as a toddler. He would leave the house towards a busy street when I was not looking. I could not reason with him or coax him into staying put. If I did not take action he could have been hurt or killed.

 

The difference is the method of child rearing taught in some of these books is to provoke children to disobedience in order to teach obedience, all on the pretext of teaching godly behavior. There is something VERY wrong with that. And some of them starting before they even crawl! Yikes! It teaches children to fear and I believe it confuses them.

 

Also if we draw a parallel about God's relationship to us and our relationship to our children (which I believe is what they are going for) it actually gives the wrong message. It portrays Him as an angry God, ready to strike us down every time we fall out of line. This is NOT God's character. Who has ever been won over to God by fear? It is love that opens our children's hearts to God, not fear. 

 

 

As a side note: These books always assume a neurotypically developing child. The truth is some children appear to be neurotypical when in fact they are not. A lot of defiant seeming behaviors are due to underlying causes. Sensory issues, ASD, ADHD, among other things. And sometime these are not visible until children are much older, way past the time these books say to start this type of training....shudder!

 

 

one more thing: I was spanked for being naughty as I child but it was always a last resort. (outright defiance, or hitting my brother when I knew better ) I don't consider it abuse now nor am I traumatized by it BUT my parents did NOT use the methods in this book. I asked my parent about these methods and they agree that they are abusive.

[MegP]

And keep in mind it is not just one or two swats on the butt. It is using a paddle, and at times (when giving an IMB spanking) giving multiple swats..like 20.

[FaithManor]

What has been described here is not an occasional swat, but a system of using physical punishment to scare a child into doing exactly what we want always.  Often times the advice is to set the kid up for failure and slap behaviors out of them that in a lot of cases are completely normal or cannot be controlled.

 

Whether that is controlled or in a moment of anger, I hardly see the difference.  In fact I can WAY more understand doing it out of anger.  I cannot hit people if I am not angry because that's just not how I do things.

Exactly. What is being spoken of in this book is not an occasional swat. This woman is advocating an awful lot of hitting, and keeping an instrument of smacking around as a visual reminder of the parents' brute strength. That's not a lot different from the every present billy club of a prison guard as a reminder to the inmates of what is to come. Not a good image for children.

 

Michelle Duggar, when she was a young mother posting on the mothering boards online - prior to when TLC scrubbed her posts in order to not have this stuff drudged up once the show hit the waves - advocated that as soon as a child could crawl, that he or she be placed on a blanket with toys placed just out of reach off the blanket. Then the parent was supposed to go hide out of sight of the child and wait for baby to crawl off the blanket. As soon as he did, the parent was to rush into the room, scream no loud and harsh enough to frighten the child, and then place him on the blanket again and disappear. The same thing was to occur after the child calmed down and did it again. On the third time, if there was a third time, the parent was to whack the baby on the legs (not the diaper because that would cushion the blow) with a flexible ruler. Smack, place on the blanket. Next time if there is one, smack twice, and so on with no end to the number of blows that baby could receive to the legs until it learned that it should never leave the blanket. Her triumphant pronouncement was that once trained to be in terror of the parent for leaving the blanket, the parent would never have to watch baby closely again because he was "blanket trained" and mother could get on with her day unencumbered with attending the infant. The screen shots of this were posted years ago on the old boards, I think my kids were maybe elementary aged back then. I had a long board break when we moved to this location and were doing a difficult renovation so when I came back it was to the newer board, and so I have no idea if that is archived and it's possible to retrieve or not. I wish I could remember the two hivers who posted the screen shots.

 

While RGT isn't going into blanket training, the reality is that along with the Pearl's, the same principle applies. Set the child up for failure for doing a perfectly normal, child like, developmental thing, and then punish the crap out of the kid. The entire concept is to manage kids through brute force and abject fear. It is abuse, plain and simple. I understand that some people can't seem to wrap their heads around the subtleties of why it is abusive, but it doesn't change the fact that it is indeed abusive and does terrible things to the child raised in such an environment.

 

This same philosophy was used in the abusive BG school I attended. They would deliberately keep "unapproved" books in the school library - if you can call it that because it was pathetic, but I digress - and never tell the students why those books should not be read (oh, and believe me, it didn't take much to be a banned book because their need to control our every thought and exposure), and then when a student would attempt to check out one of these books, the student would be punished with hard labor for showing "lack of discernment". Guess what? The process was in no way designed to teach the student anything. There was no way for the student to know what was in the book without reading it first, no way to "discern" that this would be an unapproved volume. It was designed simply to make the student afraid to make any decision at all without asking. So what they were to learn was not go pick out a book to read that looks interesting to you or is from genre x, or y, or z, but never even think of reading anything on your own. Instead you should go to the teacher and say, "What book would you like me to read next?" It was designed to remove all remnants of free will from the student, to take away choice, to turn the kid into a frightened, obedient, head down, broken zombie. And the teachers gloated over every triumph, every student punished.

 

I get this feeling of "gloating" in the passages of this book that have been posted here. I would imagine that the author would have been a much loved, much celebrated member of the faculty of that hell hole I attended if she had been hired there.

 

The thing is I know the difference between the parent that occasionally swats, my parents were these people, and the ones that use too much force, use it too often, use it to break the child. The difference is clear. I have also known many a parent that intended to be the "spankings are rare here" kind of parents who ended up being the smack constantly as the go to instructional method in their house. There are a LOT of people out there that can't see the line and exercise enough self control to not cross it. Therefore, in my not so humble opinion, I don't think any parenting book should recommend it. No matter what, setting up a child to fail and then punishing them for it, and then gloating over having done it to the kid, is absolutely always and in every way abusive. Always.

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

The difference is the method of child rearing taught in some of these books is to provoke children to disobedience in order to teach obedience, all on the pretext of teaching godly behavior. There is something VERY wrong with that. And some of them starting before they even crawl! Yikes! It teaches children to fear and I believe it confuses them.

 

 

Yes, to me this is THE most objectionable thing about this.  I think anyone who does this is in fact rather sick in the head.  I assume they get off on spanking or something.  Seriously.  It's one thing to respond to a behavior either systematically or just being human.  It is another thing ENTIRELY to set a kid up so you can slap them.  That is NOT ok.  Hell, I bet if this were a book about training dogs people would freak out. 

[JumpyTheFrog]

.

Edited June 27, 2016 by HoppyTheToad

[JumpyTheFrog]

Michael Pearl goes so far as to tell parents to leave a gun on the table and then train their kids not to touch it. This is apparently in place of owning and using a gun safe.

[lovinmyboys]

Michael Pearl goes so far as to tell parents to leave a gun on the table and then train their kids not to touch it. This is apparently in place of owning and using a gun safe.

While we definitely do not "train" our kids the way the pearls do, Dh will periodically leave his unloaded gun on the table to test the kids to make sure they run and get an adult right away. If they don't, we re-teach them what to do if they ever see a gun.

 

I cannot imagine relying on that training in place of a safe. How scary. I feel like my kids are reasonably smart and well behaved, but I don't trust them enough to leave them near a gun. Crazy!

 

(Dh is in law enforcement on a rapid response team so he has to bring his service weapon home.)

[JumpyTheFrog]

While we definitely do not "train" our kids the way the pearls do, Dh will periodically leave his unloaded gun on the table to test the kids to make sure they run and get an adult right away. If they don't, we re-teach them what to do if they ever see a gun.

 

 

Yeah, that's not the same thing.

[bethben]

I never had punishment as a child for wrong emotions, but I was taught to repress my emotions. Now, as an adult, I have whole periods of time where I "don't feel". I have no idea what my emotions are and as a result, they burst out all at the same time. I have made sure to let my children cry and get angry, but have taught them how to deal with emotions properly. What is the real reason for emotion goes a lot farther than learning to suppress it.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mergath]

And even teens have to stay where mom can "know exactly what they are doing, and can clearly hear them talking and interacting." And even teens cannot do any group activities without "parental participation." So that means no sports, no movies with friends, no hiking with a group, no youth group, no social contact with peers where the peers are not pre-approved and the activity supervised.  I cannot imagine this kind of helicopter parenting for teens!!!    

 

Good grief. I let my eight-year-old go to the playground with a group of her friends. I can't imagine not allowing someone literally twice her age to go anywhere.

[FaithManor]

Hoppy toad, I accidentally liked your post about the gun and my stupid kindle won't let me go back and change it because it is old and acting up. What I mean is I agree that not only does Pearl teach this, but the sheer stupidity of choosing that over a gun safe is mind boggling!

[Mergath]

I need to stay away from this thread at this point. 

 

I just wanted to say one thing, even though I suppose I'm a sociopathic monster for finding anything redeeming in the RGT book according to the things people have said here. 

 

In terms of beating vs. spanking, personally I think that when we say a swat on the butt to get a child's attention is the same as a rage-filled adult hauling off and closed-fist beating a child is the same thing, then we end up making light of real abuse. But then again I see that people think light swats are abuse, or will 100% lead to viscous beating so I don't know what to say. I'm out of here. 

 

I don't think a spanking and a beating are the same thing, but I do think that calling them "light swats" is a way of minimizing the fact that the point is to cause physical pain to the child. It is slapping or hitting a child. It doesn't matter WHERE on the body a person does it. I mean, if I slap or hit an adult I'm probably going to jail, but it's somehow okay to do it to a small child? Sorry, but no. Not to mention that more and more research is coming in which shows corporal punishment causes behavioral problems.

 

If reading these comments is upsetting you to this extent, maybe it's time to rethink using pain as a parenting technique. There are a lot of peaceful parenting-type books out there. I'd be happy to give you some recommendations if you want to look into it.

[maize]

I don't think a spanking and a beating are the same thing, but I do think that calling them "light swats" is a way of minimizing the fact that the point is to cause physical pain to the child. It is slapping or hitting a child. It doesn't matter WHERE on the body a person does it. I mean, if I slap or hit an adult I'm probably going to jail, but it's somehow okay to do it to a small child? Sorry, but no. Not to mention that more and more research is coming in which shows corporal punishment causes behavioral problems.

 

If reading these comments is upsetting you to this extent, maybe it's time to rethink using pain as a parenting technique. There are a lot of peaceful parenting-type books out there. I'd be happy to give you some recommendations if you want to look into it.

 

 

I think it is dangerous to equate an occasional spanking with abuse, and people do do that. I've also read a lot of the research and have not found convincing evidence that such a practice is harmful to children. One huge conflating factor that is very difficult to account for is that some children's behavior is much, much harder to manage than that of other children. Such children may be more likely to be spanked and they may also be more likely to grow up to have more negative life outcomes, but correlation does not equal causation. Social science research is notoriously difficult, humans are immensely complicated and there really is no way with current research and analysis methods to sort out all confounding factors.

 

My sister would report that she was never spanked growing up. I would have to report that I was spanked quite a lot. We are close in age and grew up in the same household, but we are very different in temperament and personality. My own experience led me to believe that spanking is not generally very effective, but spanking as I experienced it was also not very traumatic--hardly even a noticeable blip in terms of the things that bothered me during my childhood. I have spanked on occasion, when I couldn't seem to get the point of "this is serious" across to a child in some other manner--a child who repeatedly ran out into the road, or the preschooler who kept pushing the baby over. I am very much in tune with my children and can guarantee that those spankings were not among the most traumatic events in their lives--generally well below things like being buckled into a carseat or left with a babysitter. As a person who leans very heavily towards attachment and gentle parenting, I do not believe that my instincts an intuition are wrong on this point.

Edited June 27, 2016 by maize

[Mergath]

I think it is dangerous to equate an occasional spanking with abuse, and people do do that. I've also read a lot of the research and have not found convincing evidence that such a practice is harmful to children. One huge conflating factor that is very difficult to account for is that some children's behavior is much, much harder to manage than that of other children. Such children may be more likely to be spanked and they may also be more likely to grow up to have more negative life outcomes, but correlation does not equal causation. Social science research is notoriously difficult, humans are immensely complicated and there really is no way with current research and analysis methods to sort out all confounding factors.

 

My sister would report that she was never spanked growing up. I would have to report that I was spanked quite a lot. We are close in age and grew up in the same household, but we are very different in temperament and personality. My own experience led me to believe that spanking is not generally very effective, but it was also not very traumatic--hardly even a noticeable blip in terms of the things that bothered me during my childhood. I have spanked on occasion, when I couldn't seem to get the point of "this is serious" across to a child in some other manner--a child who repeatedly ran out into the road, or the preschooler who kept pushing the baby over. I am very much in tune with my children and can guarantee that those spankings were not among the most traumatic events in their lives--generally well below things like being buckled into a carseat or left with a babysitter. As a person who leans very heavily towards attachment and gentle parenting, I do not believe that my instincts an intuition are wrong on this point.

 

I guess I would have to disagree. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where hitting a child is the best course of action. And there's no way to know which kids are going to be negatively affected by it until it's too late. This is just my opinion, though. I grew up being spanked regularly and mercilessly, by hand and with belts and other objects. I also went through a period of domestic abuse as an adult. In both cases, another person used fear, pain, and shame to try to control me, and the feelings I had in the two situations were very similar for me. 

[Murphy101]

And then the thread typically diverges to two extremes where no middle ground is to be found.

 

Children are not adults and they do not get treated like adults for that reason.

A spanking is not a beating and most people, regardless of how they discipline their own kids, know it.

 

I think parenting pseudo-psychology is not limited to the religious, though that certainly adds the bitter taste of blasphemy to it.

 

I think most parents seek these sources bc they are young, inexperienced, want to do things differently than their own parents (which does not necessarily mean their own parents were abusive either) and have this misbegotten feeling that because they are struggling to parent their child, it means they must be doing something wrong. If they can just figure out The Right Way, then parenting will be easier. That's total BS, but young or inexperienced also tends to be naive and overly trusting of "experts".

 

I think usually over time, those same parents do what most of us did, through trial and error those parents toss out and retain what they view works. What decides "works" to each parent will vary of course. And sadly, trial and error parenting has been the hard course for every generation since Adam and Eve were faced with parenting Cain, Able and Seth.

 

Mostly I read this crap and think I must be the laziest parent ever. I do not and wouldn't if I did, make the effort to spank my kid for every offense they made. I'm not going to stop breastfeeding every time the next child up wants to pitch a fit for my undivided attention. I'm not going to ruin every meal trying to appease or punish every toddler who is grumpy and dissatisfied with his service. 90% of the time my parenting boils down to the most immediate natural consequence. Child refuses to put on shoes, child doesn't get to go bye bye or doesn't get to walk around or leave the van like everyone, child pitches fit at dinner table, child is removed from table. Tween whines about chores, oh geez, welcome to life and suck it up bc we all have to do it and don't want to waste time hearing that. To blow all this stuff up into sins that need hellfire intervention is not only contrary to my faith and reason, it's a waste of time and energy I refuse to indulge. There's too much knitting and coffee I could be enjoying instead.

 

Any parent that thinks their kid will not lie, especially about important things, or that they are so close that their kid would always come talk to them about problems or many other things is simply delusional. Or ego tripping. I can't ever decide on which. I have a batch of really good kids overall. I can tell you exactly what their character flaws are and still also completely believe they are really great kids. (I sure hope they can do the same with me. Mom has plenty of flaws, but overall I hope I'm viewed as a still decent mother to each of them.) I think I'm fairly close to each of them in our own unique ways. But no amount of parenting is going to parent out the human in our children. It just won't. It doesn't make them bad. It doesn't mean the parents were failures. It means humans can often fall prey to doing selfish or stupid stuff.

 

Maybe if our society didn't crucify parents for their children's behavior or decisions, those young or inexperienced parents wouldn't feel so much pressure to "do it the right way", Christian or otherwise.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Murphy101

[maize]

As an aside, am I the only one who has children who respond to being buckled into a carseat as if I were chaining them into a medieval torture device?

 

Wonder if anyone has studied the effects of those on children? I've never heard an adult call restraining a child in a carseat abuse, but based on the reactions of certain of my babies I'm pretty sure they experience it as such. Maybe I'm raising an entire generation of traumatized human beings. I don't say that flippantly, it really is a huge emotional deal for them. 

 

 

[maize]

I guess I would have to disagree. I don't think I've ever seen a situation where hitting a child is the best course of action. And there's no way to know which kids are going to be negatively affected by it until it's too late. This is just my opinion, though. I grew up being spanked regularly and mercilessly, by hand and with belts and other objects. I also went through a period of domestic abuse as an adult. In both cases, another person used fear, pain, and shame to try to control me, and the feelings I had in the two situations were very similar for me. 

 

We all approach life through the lens of our own experience. The spankings I received as a child were not traumatic to me. Being yelled at was traumatic, being spanked was not. 

 

The emotion and intent behind things makes a big difference, as does the particular personality of the person experiencing it. I know some people (my sister being one) who find physical force or violence of any kind extremely upsetting. My parents apparently picked up on this, I imagine it was a big part of why she was never spanked. But there are other things that bother me immensely that don't bother her. A certain degree of physicality really doesn't bother me, but emotional violence of any kind I am hypersensitive to.

 

My husband is extremely sensitive to any hint of physical violence, I threw a pillow at him once and he responded as if I had hit him with a cast iron pan. He's always worried about the kids' physical safety and I'm always worried about their emotional safety. I guess between the two of us we manage fairly well.

[Guest]

I agree with a lot of what murphy101 and maize said in their posts above. I ended up reading a ton of parenting books after #2 came along. #1 was easy and compliant, although rather sneaky at times. #2 was nothing like her. He would just stand in the middle of the room and rage if he didn't get his way. I went to my pediatrician who was no help whatsoever. She told me to hug him. She didn't take his outrage seriously to realize that a 27lb one year old who is pissed off doesn't necessarily want to be hugged and in fact you might get bitten if the tantrum was bad enough. I changed pediatricians and this one was no better. She had more interest in where he was sleeping, what he was eating and if his speech was on track. She couldn't even recommend me a book. My mother was clueless as I'm in only child and was easy after I outgrew colic. I was not a defiant child. I finally ended up going to my OBGYN who is a father to 5. He made several book recommendations that helped me get started on the path of parenting a more difficult child. I have never read the tomato book- but I can identify with the desperate parent who is looking for help. People who have had complaint kids struggle to identify with the kids who don't work that way. They challenge you at every step. Parenting the T Berry Brazelton way isn't going to cut it with these kids. They WILL run into the street just to test you. I'm not saying abusing kids is ever the correct way to deal with it, but parenting is definitely not a one size fits all kind of experience. I wish there were more sound books on parenting the difficult child. I personally am grateful to James Dobson because he acknowledges the differences between responses to children of different personalities.

[BlsdMama]

In the recent Dugger thread, some of the conversations derailed into discussions about the godly tomatoes book. I am reading some of the sections of the book (I don't agree with the book-I am reading to refute it) and wondered if someone could help me understand the results (to the child) of this kind of parenting. I am not just referring to spanking but to sections of the book that teach parents to not allow their kids to display emotions. 

 

Like this quote-

 

 

“The Outside Reflects the Inside

One cherished, but highly erroneous belief is that a parent should not correct a child for displaying a wrong emotion, because the child will "suppress" the emotion rather than change it. Experience convinces me otherwise. Require young children to display the right emotions outwardly and their hearts will change, producing the right attitudes and emotions inwardly as well.

 

Of course you can't simply order your children to "be happy". If the child is small, it works much better to tell him to "smile" or "straighten up your face." If the child is very young, I'll cheerfully say, "Let's see a smile now", or "Where is your smile?"

 

The child may initially resist, but when he finally obeys, the resulting smile will often break into a radiant grin, accompanied by sincere laughter and other expressions of genuine joy. It is hard for a small child to hide his true feelings. It is equally difficult for him to display an emotion that he does not really feel. Get him to smile on the outside and invariably he will smile on the inside.â€

 

 

 

So according to her, if you convince your child (through spanks, fear, corner time, lecturing) that displaying the emotion of sadness is wrong, then their hearts will change. I maintain that instead, the child will just stuff their sadness and become (I think) kind of numb. They will still FEEL sad, but they will have to work hard at not showing it through tears or facial expressions or tone or words.  Thus they become sneaky and deceitful, because the parent has intimidated them into hiding how they really feel.   Doesn't this teach kids to be victims? Learned helplessness, too?

 

What else is it teaching kids?   What kind of struggles will a child raised this way have as a teen or adult?

 

 

 

This is nothing but a train wreck waiting to happen.

 

IMO, this is an action that results in a underlying relationship.  If the underlying relationship is strong, parents are deeply invested in kids, take great joy in them, appreciate being near them, and reserves correction for times when the child is being unreasonable (for example - Junior is having a small cow over the fact that Jimmy got the last cherry popsicle and he gets stuck with orange)  then any average, normal, healthy child knows they are being unreasonable and insisting on indulging their anger.  (And as adults you know too when you are "nursing" anger or upset well beyond what is reasonable and you too have to tell yourself to knock it off.)  Now, I also think a healthy strong parental relationship means the parent can differentiate between upset (being genuinely sad that Jimmy got the last cherry popsicle and just needing a little bit to deal with that ) verses "nursing" the upset.   Nuances are so hard for the inexperienced to pick up on.  There IS a difference there.  There is also a huge difference in upset verses those who are "easily offended."  We see it here on the forum all the time - adults who need to put on their big girl panties and just realize no hard feeling existed and that they took a comment personal that simply wasn't meant that way.  

 

I would never want my children to hide how they feel.  They are human.  They get angry, sad, upset.  But once upon a time therapists advocated something called catharsis - the feeling that if you "vented" - raged, hit pillows, etc., actually "released" anger.  It doesn't.  Studies are showing that it actually caused people to be angrier.  ANGRIER.

 

Now, I do *not* believe kids should plaster on a happy face.  But if they are being easily offended, holding grudges, nursing upset, then, yeah, they need to stop.  Generally what is best to do is to verbally correct them, work through what the correct response should have been, and then think of something to do to move on - generally something team building, like the three of you weeding the garden or something physically active that would serve the family works best IMO, to change emotions.

 

But I think sending a kid to their room and away from the family is terribly damaging.

And I think people who just hold in their frustrations and then vent damage their kids.

 

 

But I think people (well, short of the obviously abusive and neglectful situations) who are extraordinarly damaging to their kids are those who hold no joy in them, who criticize, who tear down rather than build up, who are reactive rather than proactive, and who let their children know both in word and in facial expression that they have very little choice of ever pleasing that their parent.

 

I ate with two families a few months ago, nice people.  But the mom, I think had some pie in the sky ideal of how her kids should be or should have been.  Apparently oldest DD didn't fit the ideal.  She made very small slighting remarks, essentially that her daughter wasn't perfect, right there, in front of me, nearly a stranger, and another family.  WTH?  Who tears down their kid with snide little remarks to people?  You could see this really VERY personable girl just deflate.  It was obvious to me she wasn't "enough" for mom and the point definitely wasn't lost on her.

 

I have no idea if this mother ever spanked her child.  But I'll tell you this, I have indeed spanked my children.  But I don't think I've ever defeated them like I watched this woman do to her adult daughter.

It has sat with me for weeks.  I don't think watching that bubbly, pretty girl deflate as her mother just made a couple small comments will EVER leave me.  I know mama was trying to make an impression of what her family was like.  And she did.... Just probably not exactly what she thought or meant.  :(

 

And I feel sad.  Because they'll never have a close, loving relationship.  Ever.

 

So while we can talk about 10001 ways to destroy your kids, don't fall in the happy bubble that because you don't spank or because your kids can be as angry or sad as they'd like that you will somehow raise well adjusted kids.

 

 

Try this - it's a heart thing.  Turn your heart towards your kids.  Love them more than yourself.  Build them up for their own good.  And for heaven's sakes, if you're going to criticize, do it constructively and NEVER in front of people.  Never, ever humilate them.  Don't make them feel small.  

 

Sigh.

 

It's so easy to talk about what not to do and how others go wrong.

 

I so think we are best served by what should we DO.  Where can we go right?    Proactive verses reactive.  Parenting, marriage, life... It all comes down to that.

[Murphy101]

Dh was an only child and I might as well have been. Cannot count how often we stared at each other in shock or deep concern and asked each other, "wt*. Is that normal for kids? Is it supposed to be this damned hard?"

 

The answer to both the majority of the time was yes, but also the majority of the time we had no way of knowing that at the time.

[BlsdMama]

BTW, just an FYI to say I didn't want to get onto a rabbit trail, but to actually respond to OP so I didn't read any of the responses yet. ;)

[BlsdMama]

Dh was an only child and I might as well have been. Cannot count how often we stared at each other in shock or deep concern and asked each other, "wt*. Is that normal for kids? Is it supposed to be this damned hard?"

 

The answer to both the majority of the time was yes, but also the majority of the time we had no way of knowing that at the time.

 

 

This made me smile.  I honestly just did not know what was normal from not... I had one brother six years younger than me that wasn't "naughty" just "busy" - mom and dad were good at looking at his intentions... Like the time he "fixed" the car - hammer on the hood, or  the time he "helped" with the roses by pulling them out with a chain and Big Wheel.  They had a decent sense of humor.  

 

I made molehills into mountains on a regular basis.  And I ignored some mountains.  I think the hardest part of small families paired with peer age groups in school is that there is so little chance for kids to grow up knowing what normal kid behavior is, kwim?!  

 

We babysat last week for my cousin's two year old.  I was warned by his grandma that he gets into trouble all the time.  Oh my goodness!  Talk about the happiest, sweetest, most wonderful two year old boy.  Now, granted he was 160% two year old boy - he NEVER stopped moving until he passed out on the couch for a two hour nap, lol, but he was as good as gold.  He was just a super busy little boy that had a high energy need and needed to be outside, running around all morning.  But I think society seriously confuses naughty with busy and "childish" and more than that, they never give kids an outlet for their energy... Then they can't figure out why kids are frustrated, upset, bundles of contained energy and nerves.

 

We just, as a society, refuse to put the NEEDS of children and how they are made, in front of our own convenience.  The sheer stupidity of five year olds sitting at a desk in kindergarten, the fact that desks even EXIST in kindergarten, is stupidity at its finest.

[Katy]

The thing about kids responding one way to some forms of punishment and other ways to other forms...  We went to a talk by the guy who wrote the Love Languages book.  He said that you can absolutely tell which forms of punishment would be harsh to which kids.  If your kid's love language is praise, he will be especially hurt by being yelled at and criticized, but a swat on the bottom will be nearly meaningless to him.  If your kid's love language is touch, any form of physical punishment will be seen as unduly harsh. He recommended using your child's love language as a guide.  Only using the harsh punishment for that child for something extreme - like violence or putting himself in danger.

 

My parents were sort of similar - we got spanked for being violent towards siblings, for running in the road at age 6 (when we well understood NOT to do so).  I am perfectly fine with spankings under those sorts of scenarios, but setting kids up to fail and then spanking them for it is just mean.

 

Distraction for babies & toddlers, and natural consequences for older kids are so much easier, friendlier, and create less stress in the family that I don't know why anyone would go so far out of their way to "Outlast." Setting kids up to fail and then punishing them for doing so is abusive "entrapment" for adults. It's also abusive for kids.

 

Beyond that, who wants to go to all that effort to create that dynamic?  It's much easier to be happy, to have your eyes light up each time you see your kids, and to lead out of love than it is to lead out of fear.   Most of the time with younger toddlers being defiant, physically removing them from the scenario and distracting them is enough. By the time they are too big to physically remove them from whatever is bugging you, they're old enough to understand natural consequences.   I understand there are kids with attachment disorders and kids on the spectrum, etc, who my easy, lazy way of parenting might not work as well for, but most of the time, for those kids, spanking and battles of wills only make things worse.

[Murphy101]

I have children I have had to "outlast". Because some children by their nature are just "more". More argumentative. More combative. More rebellious. More literal. Just more.

 

The kid I could not ever relax on a point bc they simply were not of the personality that could willingly moderate when they were young. If I gave an inch even ONE time, that child would take a football field. And please note, I still think that child is a great kid, but I bawled copious amount of tears in my pillow at night over parenting when they were younger.

 

That said, by necessity of life circumstances, what I was willing to take such a determined stand on was very limited. It would have been unbelievably exhausting and futile to be that way on everything every day for even one child, much less ten.

Edited June 27, 2016 by Murphy101

[Guest]

I have children I have had to "outlast". Because some children by their nature are just "more". More argumentative. More combative. More rebellious. More literal. Just more.

 

The kid I could not ever relax on a point bc they simply were not of the personality that could willingly moderate when they were young. If I gave an inch even ONE time, that child would take a football field. And please note, I still think that child is a great kid, but I bawled copious amount of tears in my pillow at night over parenting when they were younger.

 

That said, by necessity of life circumstances, what I was willing to take such a determined stand on was very limited. It would have been unbelievably exhausting and futile to be that way on everything every day for even one child, much less ten.

Well and I'm guessing your definition of outlasting isn't six hours of beating an 18 month old. I think there is a huge difference between consistent, involved parenting and the horrible beating of the child who simply wanted his mother's comfort while being beaten by strangers posted up thread. I'm sure they would say they were simply being consistent but they went WAY over that line. Their total aim seemed to be not just breaking, but shattering that kid's spirit, so that other battles would never arise because the child lived in eternal fear. Much like an abusive spouse beating their partner. Swatting a five year old kid who is definitely being defiant over a safety related issue like running into the street is a completely different spectrum in my opinion.

[Murphy101]

Well and I'm guessing your definition of outlasting isn't six hours of beating an 18 month old. I think there is a huge difference between consistent, involved parenting and the horrible beating of the child who simply wanted his mother's comfort while being beaten by strangers posted up thread. I'm sure they would say they were simply being consistent but they went WAY over that line. Their total aim seemed to be not just breaking, but shattering that kid's spirit, so that other battles would never arise because the child lived in eternal fear. Much like an abusive spouse beating their partner. Swatting a five year old kid who is definitely being defiant over a safety related issue like running into the street is a completely different spectrum in my opinion.

Correct. Beating endurance is not outlasting. It's just out muscling. And I doubt I could have done that either anyways. Dh and I often noted those same children tend to also be the ones we said the only thing tougher than their backside was their brain.

[BlsdMama]

Well, I'll say this. I have not read the Goldly Tomatoes book and I was never a member of that forum. I used to read her website a billion years ago when it was a loose collection of articles. I never liked the actual domain name, which was "a trip to the woodshed." If that doesn't say she holds corporal punishment in high regard, I don't know what does.

 

BUT! There were good ideas on that site. The "tomato staking" concept makes a TON of sense, and can be easily accomplished with a non-punitive outlook. Almost any relationship can be improved by investing actual time, focused attention on the other person. Having your errant kid hang out with you and do things alongside you is a practically perfect way to form a close bond with them.

 

So, actually, I don't think the "eat the meat and spit out the bones" form of advice is bad. I would only not recommend that for someone who has poor powers of discernment. Nobody is going to have 100% perfect advice for child-rearing, marriage, financial managment, homeschooling or whatever. I think TWTM, for instance, is a great book, but I don't homeschool exactly like that. Some chapters, I say, "Yes, that is exactly what I think!" But others, I say, "nah. I'm not into that."

 

There were also some things I loved in reading Dr. Sears, as well as things I strongly disagreed with. There were also a couple things I tried a little until I found it was not a good strategy for myself or my kid(s). In some ways, I think Sears' approach also asked the reader to stick with it and trust that it would all work out eventually, which I think is just as bad as the advice to just keep on beating the kid and one day he will submit and become a delight.

 

 

I think you and I must agree on many points.  I still have several of Dr. Sears' books.  I actually think a perspective from Martha would be nice rather than just the doctor, but yes, I found a few things I didn't agree with on him as well.

 

 

Honestly?  The best parenting advice I ever got did not come in words.

 

I was incredibly blessed to meet an amazing mother in my time in PNW and watching her with kids (not just her own) but the fact that she TRULY looked at them, spoke WITH them, addressed their needs, concerns, has taught me more than anything I've ever learned about parenting.

 

I know she didn't "have it all figured out" but her grace and thoughtfulness just inspired me to really think, "That.  That's the mother I want to be."  She knew when to draw the line, when to use the more serious tone, and most of all, what separated her from the pack (though there were so many good moms in our homeschool group) was that she really SAW each child.  She didn't choose adults to speak with over kids, didn't tell them one moment when she really meant, "Go away, I'm having a conversation with an adult."  

 

I admire that woman so much.  I could have watched her interact with kids all. day. long.

 

And that kind of sounds creepy..... ;)

 

 

And you know what the saddest thing is?

 

I had never seen anyone, in my whole life, interact with kids that way except my dad in an odd way.  Dad was not the kinder, gentler, sort, lol.  He's actually a pretty.... uh, the PC way to say it would be "diamond in the rough," but he had REAL relationships with his kids.  He listened when we spoke and we always knew if he had his way, we'd go everywhere with him and do everything because he truly enjoyed our company.

 

 

I have to tell you, when your relationship is like that, it doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, but wow, you really want to work hard to maintain it, kwim?  

 

If nothing else is said about me  when I die, let it be that my kids knew my favorite people to interact with was THEM and let them say - her smile was genuine when she looked at us.

 

 

And how sad is it that it is so unusual to have someone to be a role model other than that one mother in Oregon who really saw kids as people.  When you see it, it does grab your attention, it does stand out.  I feel I've known a LOT of good moms, women I've learned from and who I admire for various reasons.  But if I could just continue to grow to be like one... that's the difference I noted.

[BlsdMama]

Interestingly enough I read Love & Logic long, long, long ago and didn't particularly love natural consequences either.  We were just talking about this last night.  Sometimes they are very useful.  Sometimes they are cruel.  This is what I mean by no one parenting "technique" (shudder - what a not great word for parenting) will fit any one scenario, child, parent, etc.

 

It really HAS to be a heart issue.

 

It's funny, Ana was my oldest and I honestly believe that I was way too hard on her.  She says now that I wasn't hard on her - I just had high expectations and I am far too lenient with the little kids.  She's wrong, btw, but well-meaning.  But an interesting discussion came about a year ago or so.  She's in her senior year of Clinical Psych before she moves onto her Masters and one of the things she noted was this:

 

It is also cruel (truly, I mean the word cruel) to let a child believe they cannot master their emotions, that they must BE mastered by them.

 

It is a horror.

 

I was that child.  Not only was I that child, but I was that teen.  There but by the grace of God did I not totally ruin my life.  I dabbled in more things than you'd ever want your child to play with as a teen and it is because my emotions utterly ruled me.

 

No one should let their kid go through their lives and believe that their feelings are their ruler.  I am not saying not let them have emotions.  That's asinine and doesn't respect the way the Creator created us.  But no one should be mastered by them.  You give your child a gift when they are strong enough to know - you do what is right not how you feel.

[gardenmom5]

 some children's behavior is much, much harder to manage than that of other children.

they are the bane of child development/parenting  "experts".  they usually have one-sized fits all solutions, and kids are different.

just from watching me and my siblings, I was convinced there were three types of children.

1.  those who will eventually turn out well even with difficult experiences.

2.  those who are affected more or less by their environment.  (the largest group.)

3 . those who will . . .  .give the best parents in the world a run for  their money . . . . 

 

 once upon a time therapists advocated something called catharsis - the feeling that if you "vented" - raged, hit pillows, etc., actually "released" anger.  It doesn't.  Studies are showing that it actually caused people to be angrier.  ANGRIER.

 

I have to disagree. it could be becasue I had sensory issues and was overstimulated - but by the time I was a 'tween I could recognize hitting pillows/ screaming/etc.. was cathartic for me.  it released energy I was otherwise unable to release.

I actually found it so cathartic - that I disrespected my mother for the time she gave into my tantrum by giving me what I wanted - instead of sending me to my room to have the tantrum.

yes, other times I would get overly upset to where I couldn't calm down.

again - I do believe it was my own sensory issues.  they were virtually unheard of at that time, and my mother managed them ill.

 

I've only seen dudeling ever get so upset he couldn't calm down once  (I actually checked on him after 30 minutes with her) - when he was with a licensed preschool teacher.  needless to say, I have utter disregard for her professional qualifications and skills.  she simply left him to cry.  once I took him back, he clung to me for dear life for 20 minutes ranging from uncontrollable crying to sobbing before he'd even lift his head off my chest.  it was another 25 minutes before he'd get off my lap. I never allowed that person to have any care over him again.

 

dudeling has asd - and he can throw screaming fits.  he's allowed - in his room. I don't have to be an audience.   he's rarely in there more than a minute or two before he's done.  conversely - when he is very upset and needs to be away from people, he knows he can go there to have quiet time to calm down.  we allowed him a passage lock on his door so he could feel safe in that no one can come in when he is upset.  he *always* has the option of snuggling/talking with me or a sibling if he's upset, sometimes he'd rather be by himself - and talk after he's calmed down.

 

This made me smile.  I honestly just did not know what was normal from not... I had one brother six years younger than me that wasn't "naughty" just "busy" - mom and dad were good at looking at his intentions... Like the time he "fixed" the car - hammer on the hood, or  the time he "helped" with the roses by pulling them out with a chain and Big Wheel.  They had a decent sense of humor.  

 

 

 oh my.  what a helpful child . . . . :smilielol5:   (I had one wash the side of my car with gravel.)

the poster child for give this child something to do or he'll find something to do . . . .

dh was one of those . . . . (and he wasn't as bad as his own father/uncles)

[LucyStoner]

It does not seem to me that the people who feel pilloried or decrying those critiquing RGT as calling "single swats" abuse are very closely reading this thread or the extensive excerpts and Q&A quoting with the author people have posted.

 

I will be very plain that I don't practice spanking as a form of punishment. Physical punishments are a non-starter for my child abuse survivor husband and any authoritarian type parenting we have dabbled in has escalated the boys' troubles and been wholly ineffectual. For our boys it's just counterproductive. I will also say that in most instances, "single swats" are not abusive.

 

But single swats are not what people are criticizing or what is presented by the author of the RGT books. People are criticizing descriptions and reccomendations which when read literally go waaaaay past a single swat.

 

Just a little of what RGT promotes:

 

-hitting babies/toddlers repeatedly, for "as long as it takes". Sometimes with the hand. But other times with rulers and paddles. Perhaps there are kids who respond to this advice after one or even three small swats but most of the kids I know would require repeatedly coming back to the corner or whatnot to hit again. And what she is describing and the people asking her questions often describe are much longer discipline sessions than one single gentle swat.

 

-an unhealthy desire/need for absolute control over your kids. I tell my kids no or offer up limited choices. But I say yes often enough that when my sons hear no, they get that it's serious and there's a reason. It sounds pathological to, upon hearing a child disagree with mom, mom would be willing to spank them and have them parrot her opinion back to her as though it was their own. I like chocolate. One of my sons does not. Why on earth would he need to agree with me about small matters of personal opinions like if the curtains are open or or not? So I make a batch of chocolate chip oatmeal cookies and a batch of oatmeal raisin. Why would that be a problem? Why should he have to acquiesce to my preferences about things that should be his choice like what electives, sports or languages he prefers? Children are not adults but they are human beings and all of us have some preferences and choices at our disposal. differing opinions are not all, as she presents them, defiance. This micromanaging, controlling attitude from parents need not be paired with spanking to be toxic and dysfunctional.

 

-Advocating putting tiny children in the corner until he or she is resigned to stay in the corner forever, showing no attention or any contact but spanking during that time.

 

-telling parents it's bad parenting to let the kids sign up for outside activities or visit friends without a parent. I guess it's terrible parenting of me to have dropped my son off this morning for the first day of a five week intensive in philosophy at a major university. And here I thought it was pretty neat to have a 13 year old who would rather spend his July voluntarily studying philosophy, writing five 2-4 page papers plus one longer paper and presentation project that he will present at a little symposium.

 

-the idea that perfection can be achieved for all kids with her method. When she makes such sweeping claims, it's clear that she is either lying or perhaps lying to herself. I value honesty and intergrity and I can't find either with someone who says she never shows emotions when her kids misbehave or that past some magic age her ten well trained kids never misbehaved.

 

If there are redeeming sections or things that were helpful to you, maybe quote them and post them here rather than defending RGT from any criticism while describing using a different parenting style than the RGT materials. The criticisms are valid and not rooted in deeming one swat to be child abuse.

Edited June 27, 2016 by LucyStoner

[gardenmom5]

some kids do require more supervision than others.

dudeling is 11, and I won't allow him in a swimming pool unless I can watch him like a hawk.  he thinks splashing other people in their faces is a fun game.  He's made progress, but still.  I can talk until I'm blue in the face that other people dont' like having water in their face, and he'll still do it.  there's a reason he gets social skills lessons from a special ed teacher . . . .

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

some kids do require more supervision than others.

dudeling is 11, and I won't allow him in a swimming pool unless I can watch him like a hawk.  he thinks splashing other people in their faces is a fun game.  He's made progress, but still.  I can talk until I'm blue in the face that other people dont' like having water in their face, and he'll still do it.  there's a reason he gets social skills lessons from a special ed teacher . . . .

 

Oh definitely.  I won't let my almost 11 year old do certain things either, but it's really a case by case basis because his brother was quite different at 11.  I always feel kinda weird when people assume a kid of a certain age should be dong XYZ and mine isn't.  Well some aren't.  So what. 

[PeacefulChaos]

I need to stay away from this thread at this point. 

 

I just wanted to say one thing, even though I suppose I'm a sociopathic monster for finding anything redeeming in the RGT book according to the things people have said here. 

 

In terms of beating vs. spanking, personally I think that when we say a swat on the butt to get a child's attention is the same as a rage-filled adult hauling off and closed-fist beating a child is the same thing, then we end up making light of real abuse. But then again I see that people think light swats are abuse, or will 100% lead to viscous beating so I don't know what to say. I'm out of here. 

I agree with you on the last paragraph.  I honestly don't care one way or another about spanking and what people do - I do think that what has been described here in this thread, however, is not the textbook 'spanking' that you or I or most people would think of.  

Here I'm seeing examples of what I would consider beating a kid.  Because to purposely set up a kid to fail just so that they can be harshly disciplined for it is wrong.  And to repeatedly, for hours on end, smack a kid's hand or backside or any other part of their body as a part of this so-called 'training' is wrong.  

It is, IMO, abuse.  

 

I've not seen anyone say that a light swat is abuse, even if it isn't their parenting style or they disapprove of it.  But the psychological and emotional manipulation that is being evidenced in these examples, along with the repeated 'swat them as many times as necessary' is.  

 

And any book that has an author who thinks that these things are okay can have no redeeming qualities for me.  There are lots of books out there that I could pick and choose things I like/ don't like.  But in the end, it comes down to some very basic things to me - is this book more harmful than helpful? Are there more things in it that are wrong/worse?  Or even if there are only a few, are they so bad that I can't possibly consider this?  And this book definitely would fall into that for me, based on what I'm hearing here.  

 

Well and I'm guessing your definition of outlasting isn't six hours of beating an 18 month old. I think there is a huge difference between consistent, involved parenting and the horrible beating of the child who simply wanted his mother's comfort while being beaten by strangers posted up thread. I'm sure they would say they were simply being consistent but they went WAY over that line. Their total aim seemed to be not just breaking, but shattering that kid's spirit, so that other battles would never arise because the child lived in eternal fear. Much like an abusive spouse beating their partner. Swatting a five year old kid who is definitely being defiant over a safety related issue like running into the street is a completely different spectrum in my opinion.

 

 

^^Agreed.  I think all parents have times when they 'outlast' in a different way - by just being consistent.  My kids know that they can't wear me down on something that is important.  That isn't a bad thing, but it isn't nearly as dramatic as the outlasting that I've seen described, and involves nothing physical .... unless you count them running back and forth, sending each different sibling to ask the same question a different way.  :D  :lol:

[LucyStoner]

some kids do require more supervision than others.

dudeling is 11, and I won't allow him in a swimming pool unless I can watch him like a hawk. he thinks splashing other people in their faces is a fun game. He's made progress, but still. I can talk until I'm blue in the face that other people dont' like having water in their face, and he'll still do it. there's a reason he gets social skills lessons from a special ed teacher . . . .

My older son couldn't do drop off programs without me staying nearby until he was 10+ so I definitely get that kids have different ages and stages at which they might be interested in outside activities. I also know I need to be the mom on the sideline at little league for my younger son and not the mom who has him carpool home after I drop him off. Many years have gone into my older son working on social communication, social skills and personal coping skills for me to have a son I can drop off for the entire day and then return home on his own via the public bus. He's exceeded my expectations, I was figuring we'd reach this point later on down the line so we went slowly and followed his lead about what worked for him. We will do the same for the younger son and see what works for him.

[Tanaqui]

I have also known many a parent that intended to be the "spankings are rare here" kind of parents who ended up being the smack constantly as the go to instructional method in their house. There are a LOT of people out there that can't see the line and exercise enough self control to not cross it.

 

Not to mention, people who spank seem to spank a lot more often than they realize. (Of course, this is a small study.)

 

[Guest]

About "single swat" vs. "Abuse": of course they are not the same thing. I admit my kids all got a "swat" on the clothed behind once in a while; one kid, fewer times than I have fingers on one hand; another kid, more than I have fingers and toes altogether. HOWEVER! I do not call any of those "swats" my finest parenting moments. These spanks most often amounted to a parental temper tantrum, combined with that fear I spoke of, the fear that they will "never" learn.

 

The thing is, should we really be trying to quantify how lightly and infrequent a "swat" should be to classify it as far from abuse? Or is the better question this: why should we "swat" at all? Mergath said this, and I agree - is any hitting between adults acceptable? If DH smacks me with the flyswatter but it doesn't really sting because it hit my jeans, is that okay? No it is not okay!

 

Or even with our own kids...there is an age, a point at which most parents recognize that, even if they "swatted" the kids as toddlers, they can't "swat" that kid anymore. So, if you can find your way to better interaction once they are 8 or 10 or whatever age, why not exercise that restraint when they are 2? I think the latest age any of my kids got a "swat" on the clothed behind with my hand was 4, but I don't say that as a point of pride! i see that as, "the latest age I ever let parental anger get the better of me in a physical way was age 4."

 

No, a little swat now and then is not the end of the world. But, it has also been proven that other non-physical methods of correction work as well or better, therefore doesn't it seem wise to move away from striking children? There are many parent-child interactions in which physical correction is a complete non-option: foster care, adoption of traumatized children, special needs, daycare and school, coaching and mentoring, and others. If it is possible to raise a good, kind, open, secure and pleasant child without ever hitting them, or messing with their minds, who wouldn't prefer that?

 

Thomas Edison said it so well; that is why I quote him in my signature. Non-violence leads to the highest ethics.

[PeacefulChaos]

About "single swat" vs. "Abuse": of course they are not the same thing. I admit my kids all got a "swat" on the clothed behind once in a while; one kid, fewer times than I have fingers on one hand; another kid, more than I have fingers and toes altogether. HOWEVER! I do not call any of those "swats" my finest parenting moments. These spanks most often amounted to a parental temper tantrum, combined with that fear I spoke of, the fear that they will "never" learn.

 

The thing is, should we really be trying to quantify how lightly and infrequent a "swat" should be to classify it as far from abuse? Or is the better question this: why should we "swat" at all? Mergath said this, and I agree - is any hitting between adults acceptable? If DH smacks me with the flyswatter but it doesn't really sting because it hit my jeans, is that okay? No it is not okay!

 

Or even with our own kids...there is an age, a point at which most parents recognize that, even if they "swatted" the kids as toddlers, they can't "swat" that kid anymore. So, if you can find your way to better interaction once they are 8 or 10 or whatever age, why not exercise that restraint when they are 2? I think the latest age any of my kids got a "swat" on the clothed behind with my hand was 4, but I don't say that as a point of pride! i see that as, "the latest age I ever let parental anger get the better of me in a physical way was age 4."

 

No, a little swat now and then is not the end of the world. But, it has also been proven that other non-physical methods of correction work as well or better, therefore doesn't it seem wise to move away from striking children? There are many parent-child interactions in which physical correction is a complete non-option: foster care, adoption of traumatized children, special needs, daycare and school, coaching and mentoring, and others. If it is possible to raise a good, kind, open, secure and pleasant child without ever hitting them, or messing with their minds, who wouldn't prefer that?

 

Thomas Edison said it so well; that is why I quote him in my signature. Non-violence leads to the highest ethics.

:hurray:  :iagree:  :hurray:  :iagree:  :hurray:

So much.  

[Guest]

I know she didn't "have it all figured out" but her grace and thoughtfulness just inspired me to really think, "That. That's the mother I want to be." She knew when to draw the line, when to use the more serious tone, and most of all, what separated her from the pack (though there were so many good moms in our homeschool group) was that she really SAW each child. She didn't choose adults to speak with over kids, didn't tell them one moment when she really meant, "Go away, I'm having a conversation with an adult."

I know a mother like this, too. She is an absolute shining beacon for the kind of mother (and person) I would like to be. I have never seen her respond angrily to a child, even when a child was being a bit pesty. She turns to them and says, "I love you!" When she wants the attention of a classroom, she sings a few notes of a Christian song about love. She has six children but, IMO, she deserves twenty. She is just a radiant vessel of Divine Love. #thingsiwishicouldbe

[MistyMountain]

some kids do require more supervision than others.

dudeling is 11, and I won't allow him in a swimming pool unless I can watch him like a hawk. he thinks splashing other people in their faces is a fun game. He's made progress, but still. I can talk until I'm blue in the face that other people dont' like having water in their face, and he'll still do it. there's a reason he gets social skills lessons from a special ed teacher . . . .

I had an instance this weekend of this. I was at a pool/spa area at a hotel and these older kids and young teens are there with their parents and they were really splashing so that lots of water was getting in my face and getting other adults with big splashes. They had these balls that they were not just throwing but lobbing really hard. They hit me and more kept coming and they had no regard that they just hit someone. The parent did absolutely nothing. I was not annoyed at the kids because I do not know them and I know some can be hard and challenging and it takes them a long time to learn behavior but It was annoying that the parent did nothing to correct it. Some kids do require more and are very challenging. I wish people understood a little better about that but these parents who did nothing are not helping them. I know that is not you but you mentioning splashing made me think of what just happen to me.

Edited June 27, 2016 by MistyMountain

[MistyMountain]

I think you and I must agree on many points. I still have several of Dr. Sears' books. I actually think a perspective from Martha would be nice rather than just the doctor, but yes, I found a few things I didn't agree with on him as well.

 

 

Honestly? The best parenting advice I ever got did not come in words.

 

I was incredibly blessed to meet an amazing mother in my time in PNW and watching her with kids (not just her own) but the fact that she TRULY looked at them, spoke WITH them, addressed their needs, concerns, has taught me more than anything I've ever learned about parenting.

 

I know she didn't "have it all figured out" but her grace and thoughtfulness just inspired me to really think, "That. That's the mother I want to be." She knew when to draw the line, when to use the more serious tone, and most of all, what separated her from the pack (though there were so many good moms in our homeschool group) was that she really SAW each child. She didn't choose adults to speak with over kids, didn't tell them one moment when she really meant, "Go away, I'm having a conversation with an adult."

 

I admire that woman so much. I could have watched her interact with kids all. day. long.

 

And that kind of sounds creepy..... ;)

 

 

And you know what the saddest thing is?

 

I had never seen anyone, in my whole life, interact with kids that way except my dad in an odd way. Dad was not the kinder, gentler, sort, lol. He's actually a pretty.... uh, the PC way to say it would be "diamond in the rough," but he had REAL relationships with his kids. He listened when we spoke and we always knew if he had his way, we'd go everywhere with him and do everything because he truly enjoyed our company.

 

 

I have to tell you, when your relationship is like that, it doesn't mean you don't make mistakes, but wow, you really want to work hard to maintain it, kwim?

 

If nothing else is said about me when I die, let it be that my kids knew my favorite people to interact with was THEM and let them say - her smile was genuine when she looked at us.

 

 

And how sad is it that it is so unusual to have someone to be a role model other than that one mother in Oregon who really saw kids as people. When you see it, it does grab your attention, it does stand out. I feel I've known a LOT of good moms, women I've learned from and who I admire for various reasons. But if I could just continue to grow to be like one... that's the difference I noted.

That does sound like a really good quality. I can think of a few adults I met through the years that were like that and it is a good quality. I want to be more like that with my own children but I am not good at being like that for other kids that are not mine.

[FaithManor]

I had an instance this weekend of this. I was at a pool/spa area at a hotel and these older kids and young teens are there with their parents and they were really splashing so that lots of water was getting in my face and getting other adults with big splashes. They had these balls that they were not just throwing but lobbing really hard. They hit me and more kept coming and they had no regard that they just hit someone. The parent did absolutely nothing. I was not annoyed at the kids because I do not know them and I know some can be hard and challenging and it takes them a long time to learn behavior but It was annoying that the parent did nothing to correct it. Some kids do require more and are very challenging. I wish people understood a little better about that but these parents who did nothing are not helping them. I know that is not you but you mentioning splashing made me think of what just happen to me.

When I see this thing, I too am not angry with the children but the parents. The natural consequence would have been for the lazy parent to get up, confiscate the balls, "If you cannot play appropriately with the balls, then I will have to put them away." Followed by bringing the child to those that were hit, and having the child say, "I am sorry that I hit you." The parent can then apologize for not supervising more closely as this was clearly not an accident.

 

No yelling, no screaming, no smacking, no outlasting. If the child did not comply with this appropriate cause of action, then I would apologize as a parent to those that were hit, and my child would lose the right to swim. We'd be out of there. Natural consequence of not playing nicely and appropriately in a public venue. No need for parental drama.

 

There are just some parents that don't parent. Period. Or like my sister in law, doesn't parent for days on end, then finally loses her cool all over everyone, calls her kids "wastes of human skin", throws dishes at them, and then sulks off to her bedroom to lick her wounds because God didn't give her nice kids. Not exaggerating. This was REGULAR occurrence and those kids grew up out of control, emotionally wounded, and so angry at their mother for the verbal abuse that they have virtually nothing to do with her now as adults. And she can't figure out why!  :banghead:

[73349]

No, a little swat now and then is not the end of the world. But, it has also been proven that other non-physical methods of correction work as well or better, therefore doesn't it seem wise to move away from striking children? There are many parent-child interactions in which physical correction is a complete non-option: foster care, adoption of traumatized children, special needs, daycare and school, coaching and mentoring, and others. If it is possible to raise a good, kind, open, secure and pleasant child without ever hitting them, or messing with their minds, who wouldn't prefer that?

 

Thomas Edison said it so well; that is why I quote him in my signature. Non-violence leads to the highest ethics.

 

Exactly. If a person is ready to learn something, s/he can learn without being hit; if not, hitting is not going to help.

[BlsdMama]

 

 

 

I have to disagree. it could be becasue I had sensory issues and was overstimulated - but by the time I was a 'tween I could recognize hitting pillows/ screaming/etc.. was cathartic for me.  it released energy I was otherwise unable to release.

I actually found it so cathartic - that I disrespected my mother for the time she gave into my tantrum by giving me what I wanted - instead of sending me to my room to have the tantrum.

yes, other times I would get overly upset to where I couldn't calm down.

again - I do believe it was my own sensory issues.  they were virtually unheard of at that time, and my mother managed them ill.

 

I

 

 

With a huge amount of respect because, in general, I like you and what you have to say ;) while it may work well for you, the idea of catharsis has essentially been abandoned.  It is more than one scientific study that has shown that acting out agressively increases the feeling of anger.  If it is useful for you, I can find some. If it's not, that's okay too. :)

[BlsdMama]

Not to mention, people who spank seem to spank a lot more often than they realize. (Of course, this is a small study.)

 

 

As a person who is fine with the occasional swat, I do agree with this - I think that people generally RESORT to spanking as a result of not having a clue how to actually deal with the person (albeit little) in front of them.   And, generally those folks are reactive vs. proactive, which means that not only have they not thought out any clear rules and consequences of violations, but when it escalates, they feel the need to go further.  

[BlsdMama]

That does sound like a really good quality. I can think of a few adults I met through the years that were like that and it is a good quality. I want to be more like that with my own children but I am not good at being like that for other kids that are not mine.

 

 

Yeah, I know what you mean.  She had a really special relationship with my daughter Sarah and I was very sorry to move away from that.  Everyone should have people like this in their lives, as adults and as kids.  I try to be this person to my nieces. I'm not, but I keep trying.

 

ETA: I apologize for not using multi-quote.  I really suck at it.  I choose to think it's optimism - that I can sum everything up in one response, but then I read somebody else's comments.  :P ;)

Edited June 28, 2016 by BlsdMama

[Murphy101]

With a huge amount of respect because, in general, I like you and what you have to say ;) while it may work well for you, the idea of catharsis has essentially been abandoned. It is more than one scientific study that has shown that acting out agressively increases the feeling of anger. If it is useful for you, I can find some. If it's not, that's okay too. :)

I call bunk on those studies. Because constructive outlets for aggression are generally considered a development good and there's a lot of history to back that up. And not all aggressive outlets are aggression in and of themselves.

 

Sports. Martial arts. Chopping wood. For starters.

 

To say any form of aggressive outlet is just fostering more aggression seems to be a toss of baby with bath water to me.

[LucyStoner]

Having played sports, practiced martial arts and chopped wood, I don't think those pursuits are especially aggressive. Active and perhaps competitive, yes. Aggressive? For the most part not really. Even contact sports, wrestling or boxing aren't aggressive in the same way that hitting someone outside the mutually understood rules of the sport would be or destroying property is. Channeling anger into active work or sports isn't the same idea as cartharsis which held that screaming or throwing things helped people calm down.